Language desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 7

dinner was held

This is just a survey on something that has already been fixed in an article. What is the first meaning of "held" that comes to mind on reading this line: "a guest arriving from Berlin was delayed, and for the first time in years dinner was held." Jay (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my first reading I understood it to mean "took place" on my second "stayed/postponed/held up". Nanonic (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the first reading: "a dinner was conducted"; I didn't even think of anything else until I read Nanonic's comment. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me, but only for a second. Then it hit me - did they never eat before this guest arrived, or did they just sit with their plates in their laps in the TV room? And what did their general eating practices have to do with the delay in some guest arriving on one particular occasion? So, it obviously must have meant something other than "took place", and probably should have been "held up". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the responses. Exactly the same impressions I got when I read it the first time. I just wanted to confirm I was not off the mark when I had complained, and the modification was accordingly done here. I'm more familiar with "held up" to mean delayed, rather than the single word "held". If I had written the full sentence, again perhaps the reactions would be different. Jay (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay has biased the survey by putting "dinner was held" in the heading and boldfacing the word in the quote. The eye is drawn to those places first. The words "dinner was held" are, I think, most often heard in the context of "a dinner was held", meaning a banquet, so in isolation they put this in mind. If the complete sentence had been in the title, people might read the actual context before getting to the word "held", and then they would be more likely to think of the intended meaning, familiar from things like trains being held for passengers connecting off another, delayed train. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, April 7, 2009.

Perhaps, but we're not writing poetry here. Meanings should be as immediately apparent as possible, with little opportunity for ambiguity or confusion. We don't want people to have to reread sentences a couple of times to understand which meaning of a word they should take; I don't read headers (given the way I read the desks) and it was only when I got to your response that I saw the intended meaning of the sentence. Although the first meaning clearly didn't make sense, it was only reading Nanonic's comment that tipped me to the right meaning. Even then I assumed that the 'up' had simply been left out. The intended meaning of 'held' as in a train did not occur to me, because I don't expect to see it in that context. 80.41.115.101 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was only commenting on the survey, not the sentence. --Anon, 07:13 UTC, April 10.

I have heard and used the term "held" mant times for anything "withheld", "held up" and "put on hold.". In the context, I still think the meaning was quite clear and correct, but it matters not...whatever. Giano (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ekervally

In Chapter 18 of Great Expectations, a character uses a word "ekervally" in the following context:

Biddy nodded her head thoughtfully at the fire as she took up her work again, and said she would be very particular; and Joe, still detaining his knees, said, "Aye, aye, I'll be ekervally partickler, Pip;"

Joe's speech is often represented in eye dialect, so I wasn't surprised when the OED didn't have this word. I can't find a definition online, because the book is common enough that typing it simply yields digitised editions. Any idea what it means? From the context I guess that it relates to Biddy's "very", and I'm wondering perhaps if it's related to Old English éac, more modern "eke", to mean something like "extra"? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally? — Emil J. 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Dickens' Cockneys usually mix up their Vs and Ws, so he's trying to suggest the pronunciation [ˈiːk(ə)vəli]. —An gr 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that; a pity that my Old English gets in the way of misunderstanding this. I've seen how Joe will frequently talk of "wery" instead of "very", for example. "Ekerwally" still sounds a bit odd, but then so does a lot more of Joe's speech, so it all makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "er" must, I think, be indicating that the speaker also is inserting a vowel epenthetically (or anaptyctically, if you prefer) between the K and the V sounds, like the way some people (especially in Britain) pronounce "film" as "fillum". --Anonymous, 19:35 UTC, April 7, 2009.

It sounds like the dialect of Somerset to me, if I pronounce it out loud.--KageTora (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Druda" mean?

Hello, I am reading a novel by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué, in which one of the characters is repeatedly referred to as a "Druda". The novel was originally written in German but I am reading it in English translation. I have already looked at a German-English dictionary without any luck. Does anyone know if "Druda" means anything in German, or if it could be something made-up? Thank you. Loves Macs (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. It seems to be a very rare last name in Switzerland. —An gr 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a cognate of the (increasingly rare) Dutch proper name Geertruide. According to this source, that name possibly contains an element druda, which would mean "sorceress". However, this etymology seems more likely. Not sure if this is also meant here. It might simply be an archaic German equivalent of the name, which in Dutch is often shortened to simply Trui, Trudy etc., or it might be a reference to some special quality of the fictional character. Iblardi (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled on the phrase "What is a Druda". There were no obviously relevant hits (and Google asked me if I meant "What is a drug"), but it did find Wikipedia's stub page Drudas, a village in southwestern France near Toulouse. I know nothing about the place beyond what's on that page and its somewhat longer French version, which says its inhabitants are called Drudasois. I imagine this is irrelevant. --Anonymous, 19:45 UTC, April 7, 2009.

It does seem to be a form of the name Gertrud, often abridged to Trudl, and apparently sometimes to Druda. See [1] Iblardi (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found an answer in the German Wikipedia, which has an article on Drude. I should have thought of Wikipedia in the first place! Now if only I could read more German... :/ The character is indeed something like a sorceress. Thanks to everyone for working on this! Loves Macs (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an article on Drude in the en:WP, which seems fairly identical. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German wikipedia has it mentioned as form of "Gertrud" e.g. de:Morrien. The article "a" might be a translation slip up "eine (gewisse) Gertaud" (one called Gertraud) would not translate to "a Gertrud". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about a third of this book so far and the character does not entirely fit the description given at Drude. In fact the only thing that agrees is that she is a witch, but in this case a good one. Thank you for all your answers. Loves Macs (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spanish translation

what does "el grullense" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix -ense (from Latin -ensis) normally refers to someone or something coming from a certain place. In this case that could well be El Grullo. Iblardi (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is most likely the demonym of El Grullo. A Google search also shows it as a business and place name. It is not included in the dictionary of the Real Academia Española, however.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this article about the meaning of the name (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=6096).98.18.149.155 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of the noun "gas"

It's "gases". I wonder why it's not "gasses". Stressed short vowels in infinitive verbs normally take double consonants in the present participle and past tense, to prevent them from being perceived as long vowels - "hit" > "hitting", "fit" > "fitted", and so on. "Gases" could well be quite reasonably pronounced by a lingo-newby as "gazes", and I'd have a hard time explaining why it doesn't rhyme with that word, or with "phrases" or "vases" (US pron.), but with "basses" (fish), "lasses", "masses" and "wrasses", all of which have double consonants (although I appreciate their singulars do too). There's the verb "gasses", but in a context it would be hard to confuse that word with a noun. And we have a multitude of homonyms in English, with which we generally have no difficulty. So why "gases" and not "gasses" for the noun? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought about it, but when used as a verb, certainly, the 3rd Person Singular is 'gasses', present participle is 'gassing', and the past tense and past participle are 'gassed', with the double 's'.--KageTora (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Merriam Webster does indeed give 'gasses' as an alternative spelling of the plural.--KageTora (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure I've seen "gasses" (n. pl.) in olde-world texts, but it looks antiquated now. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be something to do with "gas" being a made-up word? DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also bus and yes (noun), whose usual plurals, at least in the U.S., are buses and yeses (although Merriam-Webster gives busses as an alternative for the former). I can't offhand think of any other monosyllabic nouns ending in a vowel + s. Deor (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're good examples. Bus escaped my memory when I drafted the question, but I would ask the same question: why "buses" and not "busses"? "Buses" looks like it's something that "abuses" rhymes with. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really give you an answer, save that English nouns ending in a vowel and a single s, no matter where the stress falls, seem to be pluralized by merely adding -es (aliases, etc.). Apparently, someone's written a book titled The Plural of Bus Is Buses, Isn't It?, having on its cover a picture of a sign reading "Busses Welcome," which sounds as though it should be hung up with the mistletoe. There are a lot of English words that look odd to me—in particular stomachache, which looks to me like a descendant of ancient Greek that should be pronounced stoh-MAHK-ah-kee. Deor (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've ever seen that as one word before. But times change, as do words. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English singular noun bus has two plural forms: buses and busses. The English plural noun busses has two singular forms: bus and buss. A buss is a kiss. See wikt:bus and wikt:buss. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one were talking about the pros and cons of something, and using mathematical terminology, would it be "the pluses and minuses" or "the plusses and minuses"? If you tell me it's "pluses", that will leave me somewhat nonplussed. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says: pluses or plusses. See wikt:plus. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English singular noun as has the plural form asses. The English singular noun ass has the plural form asses. The English form asses is the plural of two different nouns: as and ass. An as was a Roman coin. See wikt:as and wikt:ass.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How fascinating. So, the noun as doubles the consonant in the plural; gas does not; and there's a choice with plus. Even for a language replete with exceptions to rules and unintuitive spellings, that's weird. I think I'll give up on English and become a basquophone. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline doesn't say it's made up, and if you are thinking of 'gasoline', that doesn't have a plural, even when shortened to 'gas'.--KageTora (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word gas was made up by J. B. van Helmont (1577-1644). DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. He took it from Gk. Khaos, so it's not as if the words are historically related, just copied.--KageTora (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This American rhymes vases with places, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I assumed that (my question may look like I thought it rhymed with "gazes", but I wasn't thinking that, although I have heard it pronounced both ways - to rhyme with "places" or with "gazes"). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 21 more links to Wiktionary pages. I have not spent time in preparing comments about these words.

wikt:bris, wikt:cos, wikt:crus, wikt:dais, wikt:feis, wikt:jus, wikt:kris, wikt:maas, wikt:nous, wikt:os, wikt:pas, wikt:pes, wikt:pus, wikt:ras, wikt:reis, wikt:res, wikt:sais, wikt:sis, wikt:tas, wikt:vas, wikt:vis

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech people and English

The coming summer, I figured I'd go to the World Bodypainting Festival again, but this time stop in Prague along the way, as it's conveniently situated along the route from Germany to Austria. However, this would be my first time alone in a foreign country where I don't even understand a modicum of the local language. How well am I supposed to get along with English? Do the locals speak German too? I speak German fairly well but worse than English. I speak absolutely zero Czech. JIP | Talk 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prague has become quite touristy, and I know from personal experience that many, many people speak English there. LANTZY ^TALK 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, certainly in the shops, restaurants and bars of the Old Town you shouldn't have much of a problem with English. It's worth learning a modicum of words in Czech too though. I always think that if you're in a new country and you learn just six words, those for "yes", "no", "hello", "goodbye", "please" and "thank you", you'll feel a lot more comfortable and will often be quite surprised by how far they get you. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Hungary in 1985, all I could say in Hungarian was "ice cream" and "thank you", which was entirely sufficient for my purposes! —An gr 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the bathroom" also never hurts. Livewireo (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are hotel rooms so big in Hungary that you need to ask directions for where to have a bath?--KageTora (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He means in restaurants and cafes, obviously, and he wasn't talking about Hungary. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that just highlights the absurdity of that euphemism. Having a bath - on the premises - is not something that most restaurant or cafe patrons would ever think of doing, unless a waiter somehow managed to pour a tray of food/drinks all over them, or vomit all over them, so a room with bathing/showering facilities is not something that a restaurant or cafe would ever have available. A room with a toilet, now that's a different matter entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in Prague, most people you will encounter speak either English or German. I like Richardrj's list, except that I would add "sorry" and/or "excuse me". It helps ward off angry looks or hostility when you bump into someone on the metro. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes between positive and negative verb forms

I've found out that in my native Finnish, changing a sentence from positive to negative does not simply add a negative marker, it changes the verb itself into a negative version of itself. For example:

Minä olen suomalainen vs. Minä en ole suomalainen.

Compare this to the other languages I speak:

I am a Finn vs. I am not a Finn
Jag är finsk vs. Jag är inte finsk
Ich bin Finnisch vs. Ich bin nicht Finnisch
Je suis finnois vs. Je ne suis pas finnois

In Finnish, the word en is not simply a negative marker, it's an auxiliary verb, so the sentence literally means "I not-do be a Finn". If the auxiliary verb were to be simply left out, the sentence would become Minä ole suomalainen, which is ungrammatical, but nowadays young people use a slang form similar to it: Minä mikään suomalainen ole ("I am not any kind of Finn", the word "not" is left out, but implicit from the context), or even Vittu minä mikään suomalainen ole ("I am not any kind of fucking Finn"). Do any other languages have this kind of feature? JIP | Talk 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) ::Well, there is the obvious one of French, where more and more people would say 'je suis pas finnois', leaving out the 'ne'.--KageTora (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't be a Finn, so I need to ask: Is en used with other verbs? — In Swahili (if memory serves after thirty years) a negative verb has the prefix ha unless it's first person singular, in which case the 'I'-prefix changes from ni to si; and the present tense marker -na- is dropped. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's used with all verbs. If the person case changes (I, you, we, and so on), only the en auxiliary verb is inflected, the main verb stays the same. JIP | Talk 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean has different verbs for "is true" and "is false". Korean has different verbs for "does exist" and "does not exist" as well. 나는 사람이다. "I am a person." 나는 사람이 아니다. "I am-not a person." 사과가 있다. "(An) apple exists." 사과가 없다. "(An) apple does-not-exist." --Kjoonlee 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Goidelic languages make use of dependent and independent verb forms, with the result that verbs often have a different form after the negative particle than they do in positive sentences, e.g. Scottish Gaelic glacaidh mi ("I will hold") vs. cha glac mi ("I will not hold") or Irish chuaigh mé ("I went") vs. ní deachaigh mé ("I didn't go"). If it comes to that, the English arrangement of I held vs. I didn't hold seems to be at least superficially similar to what's happening in Finnish. —An gr 06:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite similar, but not identical. An example should clarify: "I hold" and "we hold" are minä pidän and me pidämme in Finnish. Notice the -n and -mme suffices, indicating singular and plural. In the negative they would be minä en pidä and me emme pidä. This time, the suffices are in the auxiliary verb, not in the main verb. Because English has only one verb suffix indicating person, I have to use it to make an example: "he holds" is hän pitää, but "he doesn't hold" is hän ei pidä, literally "he nots hold". As far as I have understood, this "doesn't" construct in English is only short hand for "does not", which is an auxiliary verb plus a marker. If the "not" marker were to be left out, the meaning would change, but the sentence would still be grammatical. This is not the case in Finnish, as the inflection has to be somewhere - on the auxiliary verb if there is one, otherwise on the main verb. A sentence whose predicate is entirely uninflected is ungrammatical. It's difference between a positive sentence and a negative sentence with the "not" word removed that allows for the slang constructs I mentioned earlier. Also, from what I've understood, English used to use a simple "not" marker (as in "I hold not"), just like Swedish and German do. JIP | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's interesting. I'm certainly unaware of any other language where the negative particle itself can be inflected, but English and Finnish are still alike in that in negative sentences, the inflection of the verb moves from the main verb and onto the particle. The difference is that in Finnish, the inflection moves straight onto the particle itself (so that the particle is effectively an auxiliary verb), while in English, the inflection moves onto a dummy auxiliary verb to which the negative particle cliticizes. Still, I think that of all the phenomena people are listing in this thread, the English construction is most similar to the Finnish. In English, do-support is also found in questions (He holds vs. Does he hold?). How are questions formed in Finnish? —An gr 06:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between yes/no-questions and wh-questions. Yes/no-questions are formed simply by adding a question suffix -ko/-kö (depending on vowel harmony) to the word that is the focus of the question. For example: hän osti sinun punaisen autosi ("he bought your red car"): ostiko hän sinun punaisen autosi? ("did he buy your red car?"), hänkö osti sinun punaisen autosi? ("was it he who bought your red car?"), sinun punaisen autosiko hän osti? ("was it your red car that he bought?"), sinunko punaisen autosi hän osti? ("was it you whose red car he bought?") - but not sinun punaisenko autosi hän osti? ("is it red that your car that he bought is?"), which is ungrammatical. Wh-questions are formed with question words such as mikä ("what"), miten ("how"), miksi ("why"), just like in English. JIP | Talk 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in yes/no questions. So is "Does he hold?" Pitääkö hän?? —An gr 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, well figured. JIP | Talk 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish, the verb "to be" changes to "to have" when negated in expressions equivalent to "there is/there is no...". For example, you walk into a grocery and ask if they've got some bread: Czy jest chleb? ("Is there bread?"). If they have, then the answer is: Jest ("There is" where jest is the third person singular form of być, "to be"). But if you're back to the 1980s and all they have in stock is vinegar, then the answer is: Nie ma ("There is none" where ma is third person singular form of mieć, "to have"). In other words, instead of "There is no bread", you'd say "There has no bread" (Nie ma chleba). This happens only in the present tense and only in sentences expressing the physical lack of something or somebody. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course in Russian, in the same situation, you would use no verb at all: Khleb yest'? ("There is bread?") — Khleba nyet ("No bread"). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, in informal speech, 'aru' (there is/are) changes to 'nai' in the negative (as opposed to the hypothetical and rule-conforming *aranai, which doesn't exist) . This doesn't happen in formal speech, however, where they are 'arimasu' and 'arimasen' respectively. --KageTora (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the negative of 'da' (is) in Japanese is 'de wa nai/janai/denai' (take your pick!).--KageTora (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic has a negative form of "to be", "laysa", which is conjugated in the perfect tense but has a present meaning. (Arabic doesn't actually have a present tense form of "to be" but it does have one for the past tense, "kana".) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are even further differences between positive and negative sentences in Finnish. There is a suffix that has both a positive form: -kin (meaning "also" or "after all") and a negative form: -kaan/-kään depending on vowel harmony (meaning "not even" or "not after all"). The positive form may only appear in positive sentences, and vice versa. For example, hän osti leipääkin ("he also bought bread") vs. hän ei ostanut leipääkään ("he didn't even buy bread"), or hän ostikin leipää ("he bought bread, after all") vs. hän ei ostanutkaan leipää ("he didn't buy bread, after all"). In questions, either form of the suffix may appear, but the meaning changes. For example, ostiko hän leipääkin? means "did he also buy bread?" but ostiko hän leipääkään? means "did he even buy bread?".

Furthermore, Finnish has separate telic (completed) and atelic (ongoing) direct objects. For example, hän osti auton ("he bought a car, now it's all his") vs. hän ostaa autoa ("he is currently in the process of buying a car"). However, in negative sentences, telic objects become atelic, even if the meaning is still "telic" (completed). It is correct to say hän ei ostanut autoa but not hän ei ostanut auton, even though both mean "he didn't buy a car". Does something like this happen in other languages? JIP | Talk 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not off the top of my head in any languages I know. Estonian and Saami would be the obvious ones, but that is not what you are after, I know, as they are too close to Finnish. It would be interesting to get some answers on this post from a Hungarian speaker, and see if there are any similarities there.--KageTora (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]